TMEP 712.03: Response Signed by an Unauthorized Person

712.03
Response Signed by an Unauthorized Person

Notice of Incomplete Response. When it appears that a response to an
Office action was signed by an improper party (e.g., a foreign attorney who is not
authorized to practice before the USPTO, a corporate employee who does not have legal
authority to bind the applicant, or, when the applicant is represented by a qualified
practitioner, someone other than the practitioner or another qualified practitioner from
the same firm), the examining attorney must treat the response as incomplete. The
examining attorney must issue a notice of incomplete response granting the applicant 30
days, or to the end of the six-month response period set forth in the previous Office
action, whichever is longer, to perfect the response, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)(2)
(see
TMEP §§ 611.05(a),
718.03(b)). The examining attorney must defer action on the
merits of the response until a properly signed response is filed.

Applicant’s Reply to Notice of Incomplete Response. If the person
who signed the response was authorized to sign, the applicant’s reply to the notice of
incomplete response should state the nature of the relationship of the signer to the
applicant. If the signer has legal authority to bind the applicant, the person should
so state, and should set forth his or her title or position. If the signer is an
attorney authorized to practice before the USPTO pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §11.14(a), the
attorney should identify him or herself as an attorney and indicate the United States
state bar of which he or she is a member in good standing. If the signer meets the
requirements of either 37 C.F.R. §11.14(b) or (c), the person should explain how he or
she meets these requirements. See TMEP §611.05(b) for further
information.

If the person who signed the response is not an authorized
signer, the applicant is unrepresented, and all proposed amendments in the improperly
signed response can be resolved by an examiner’s amendment, the individual applicant or
a person with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant may telephone the examining
attorney to authorize such an amendment. If the applicant is represented by a qualified
practitioner, that practitioner must authorize any examiner’s amendment. Otherwise, the
applicant must submit a response signed by the applicant or someone with legal authority
to bind the applicant (see
TMEP §§712.01
et seq.), or by a qualified practitioner. This should be done
through TEAS (using either the "Response to Office Action" or "Request for
Reconsideration after Final Office Action" form, as appropriate), or may be done by fax
(unless it is excluded by 37 C.F.R. §2.195(d)). In a TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application,
the response must be filed through TEAS, or the application will lose TEAS Plus or TEAS
RF status (see
TMEP §§819.02(b),
820.02(b)). See TMEP §611.01(c) regarding signature of
documents submitted through TEAS. When a response is signed by an unauthorized party,
it is not acceptable for the applicant to ratify the response through an examiner’s
amendment.

Unsatisfactory Response or No Response. If no acceptable response is
received within the time granted under 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a)(2), the examining attorney
must hold the application abandoned for failure to file a complete response.
See
TMEP §718.03. In
this situation, the applicant cannot file a petition to revive under 37 C.F.R. §2.66.
The applicant’s recourse is to file a petition to the Director to reverse the examining
attorney’s holding of abandonment under 37 C.F.R. §2.146. See TMEP §1713.01
regarding the standard of review for reversing an examining attorney’s holding of
abandonment due to incomplete response.